Category Archives: Governor

You might have read the AP story about legislative
pushback coming from both sides of the aisle on the state Supreme
Court’s McCleary decision. Republican Sen. Michael Baumgartner has
a bill that would shrink the court from nine members to five. Part
of it is a response to what he sees as judicial overreach, but he
also said it would save money.

During AP’s Legislative Preview earlier in January I wondered if
state Sen. Mark Schoesler of Ritzville was chafing at the McCleary
decision follow-up when he said, “If money were the key to
education we’d all long for our kids to be in the Washington, DC
schools.” If we were not in the midst of a period in which the
court had demanded the Legislature spend more on schools, it would
be just another political statement. Coming at this time, however,
it seemed like it might be more than partisan posturing.

Jim Hargrove, a Democratic state senator, is also on the record
saying he sees “separation-of-power problems” with the court’s
approach.

Doug Cloud, who was one of the Republican candidates to replace
Jan Angel in the House, said he sees problems with the court’s
actions.

If legislators, almost all of whom say they will allocate more
money to education regardless, decide to challenge the court’s
authority, it could mark a precedential moment in Washington
history.

Meanwhile, Gov. Jay Inslee is proposing spending $200 million
more from this budget on education, including $74 million that
would give teachers a 1.3 percent raise. It would be the first
cost-of-living raise since 2008, despite the fact that voters
approved annual COLAs in 2000. The governor also cited not just the
decision, but the court’s statement that the Legislature was not
moving fast enough to get to full funding by 2018.

Mike Baker’s Associated Press story today on the state’s
economic forecast emphasizes the most salient point, something that
could be lost in the press releases.

“Washington state government can expect to bring in $16.1
million less than projected in the current budget cycle because of
a lackluster economic recovery, forecasters said Wednesday” is what
Baker wrote in the AP story Wednesday.

That might be confusing to some who read the state’s Office of
Financial Management press release that carries the headline
“Washington quarterly revenue projection for 2011–13 increases $156
million.”

Both are correct, but context is important. State revenues are
up $172 million for the two-year budget because of “policy changes
and fund shifts,” wrote Brad Shannon at the
Olympian. Subtract $16 million from revenues lost by the overall
economy and you get that $156 million increase.

In relative terms the $16 million is more or less flat,
according to House Ways and Means Chairman Ross Hunter, a Medina
Democrat. Compared to the forecast a year ago when revenues were
projected to be down $780 million from earlier predictions, that’s
true. The celebrations over the most recent numbers, however, are
tepid at best and fraught with warnings about events that could
make the numbers a lot worse.

OFM’s press release follows, as does the governor’s official
statement and those from Republican budget leadership. If
Democratic leadership from the Legislature issues any statements
I’ll add them.Continue reading →

The announcements from both parties were politically predictable
in the wake of Jay Inslee’s decision to quit being a member of
Congress for the rest of the year.

“It’s shameful of Congressman Inslee to lie to his constituents
and the people of Washington about his intentions,” said WSRP
Chairman Kirby Wilbur.

“It was a difficult decision, but what I need to do right now is
focus all my attention on talking to people about what’s really
important – creating jobs and growing our economy,” said
Inslee.

The reaction from traditional allies on the left, however, has
not been kind. Joel Connelly at seattlepi.com and Nina Shapiro
at SeattleWeekly.com compared his
decision to Sarah Palin’s resignation as Alaska governor. There is
other precedent for it being a successful move. Neil
Abercrombie left Congress to run for governor of
Hawaii.

For locals the bigger impact is half of Kitsap County will not
have a member of Congress to vote for them for the rest of the year
and a few days into 2013. His staff will continue to work to help
constituents. I don’t know how much heft is loss when those staff
members don’t have a member of Congress.

Some members of the First District will have a member of
Congress for the month between election certification and
inauguration. Whoever wins the First District race in November will
begin serving the district as soon as the election is certified.
That new member of Congress however, will be serving in the new
boundaries drawn up as part of redistricting. That means about half
of all Kitsap residents will still have to wait until Jan. 3, 2013
when the new Sixth District member of Congress is sworn in.

Because of redistricting, it also means that some Washington
residents will have two members of Congress, wherever the new First
and the old districts overlap. Lucky them, I guess.

When I wrote the story last week about
Heather Purser, who lobbied to get same-sex marriages licensed and
recognized within the Suquamish Tribe, it was done with the idea
that the issue could be a big one in the upcoming legislative
session. Gov. Chris Gregoire’s decision to put forward her own bill
now guarantees it.

As part of the story the interviews included discussions about
the possible political realities and addressed questions that were
not part of the piece on Heather. A story has its focus, and that
one was more about her and her possible upcoming role. This might
be a good time to discuss some of those other conversations.

We should start with some of the arguments against expanding
marriage rights. Two Republican state legislators’ e-mails arrived
in my inbox. State Rep. Matt Shea of Spokane Valley said he was
surprised the governor and Democrats were making this an issue when
the state was still in a budget crisis. He referenced how people
have taken advantage of the state’s domestic partnership rules.

State Sen. Val Stevens of Arlington was more direct about the
issue itself:

“Marriage between one man and one woman gives strength to
society. Marriage and the family, instituted since the beginning of
time, is the cornerstone of our nation and gives stability in our
society. Children look to their mother and father to teach them
family principles, which gives them a foundation to become
contributing members of society.

“Same-sex marriage will erode that foundation. It will undermine
the value that is statistically upheld for children being parented
by a mother and father.

“Domestic partnership claimed to be the goal of the homosexual
community, in order to give them the legal foundation they claimed
was needed. However, only one-quarter of one percent of Washington
citizens have taken advantage of the domestic partnership
legislation passed in 2009. But now they want marriage.

“This is a tactic to divert attention from the emergent issue of
the state’s financial crisis.
“The Washington State Constitution protects freedom of conscience
and our religious heritage. I will oppose this legislative proposal
for the sake of maintaining our stable society.”

That third paragraph was a particular point I addressed with
Joshua Friedes, director of marriage equality for Equal Rights
Washington. I asked if Washington voters approved the “Everything
but Marriage” measure in 2009, don’t gay and lesbian couples
already enjoy all the same legal protections that straight couples
do. He said it hasn’t worked out that way.

People pressed with legalities and policies and rules understand
what “marriage” offers someone, particularly in a crisis situation.
They can’t be assumed to understand what rights a “domestic
partner” has, he said. The classic example of gay couples not being
able to exercise decisions or even visitations in hospitals still
exists, he said, even if the law has changed in their favor.

The bigger stumbling blocks are with federal rules, he said. Gay
couples don’t get the same benefits straight married couples do
when it comes to taxes and Social Security benefits, he said.
Providing marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples won’t change
that, he said, but it will send a message.

“What’s important is Washington will be making clear for the
first time that gay and lesbian families deserve the same rights as
other families. That in itself is very important. We will have
equal dignity in Washington state as we continue to work for the
federal rights and responsibilities,” Friedes said.

And, he continued, the federal government’s Defense of Marriage
Act is bound to fall. When it does, Washington gay and lesbian
couples would be among the first to benefit if marriage rights are
extended.

State Rep. Sen.
Christine Rolfes, a Bainbridge Island Democrat, will support a
same-sex marriage bill and protections for religious institutions
to be sure the churches are not forced into supporting something
they are opposed to. I asked if she knew of any ways churches had
been harmed by same-sex marriage laws in other places, and she
didn’t.

The website for PBS NewsHour show sheds some light. Every expert takes
time to illustrate that churches won’t have to marry same-sex
couples, which when you’ve read that for the sixth time gets old.
There are ways, however, that churches could be affected. Churches
that deliver services to the public could be targeted if they’re
found to be denying them based on marriages it doesn’t recognize.
There are issues of health benefits for employees and hiring
practices generally. Another site pointed to a lawsuit in New
Jersey in which the owner (a church) of a park site, didn’t want to
allow a same-sex marriage ceremony to be performed by someone
renting space.

For Friedes I asked the question if they weren’t afraid the
same-sex issue wouldn’t have the same impact some thought it had in
2004. Many states had measures they called, “Defense of Marriage”
initiatives or ballot items and some thought it helped get George
W. Bush re-elected, because it ignited a base on the right that
might otherwise have skipped the election. Were that to happen in
Washington, would it hurt the chances of Jay Inslee, who supports
same-sex marriage, in his run for governor against Rob McKenna, who
is against it? Friedes said he thinks public sentiment has changed
dramatically in the eight years since that election. And, he said,
they’re working to get the measure passed in the Legislature. He
has no delusions that it wouldn’t likely end up on the November
ballot anyway in the form of a referendum. But, he said, what was a
wedge issue for the right has in the last eight years become a
wedge issue for the left.

Now that Gov. Chris Gregoire is about to make it official she
will not seek a third term, you may be wondering whether fellow
Democrat, Bainbridge Island Congressman Jay Inslee would announce
his intentions today.

He won’t.

That’s what his campaign contact Joby Shimomura said to me just
moments ago. She also said the suggestion that now that Gregoire
has announced that Inslee isare not
true.

“That is not the case,” she said. He is still considering it.
“He’ll make his decision known shortly.”

If you’d be surprised if Inslee decided to not run, you would
not be alone.

UPDATE: Here’s the official statement from Inslee’s office: “I
appreciate the Governor’s service during these difficult economic
times. Today is her day. I will make my intentions on the
Governor’s race known shortly.”

President Barack Obama issued this statement: “I applaud
Governor Gregoire for her decades of outstanding service to the
people of Washington. From Seattle to Pullman, Gov. Gregoire has
demonstrated relentless determination in her efforts to foster
economic growth, strengthen the communities she serves and improve
the lives of millions of Americans. As a fierce advocate for
American businesses, she continues to work tirelessly to promote
American goods, open up new markets and strengthen American
businesses abroad. As chairwoman of the National Governors
Association, Gov. Gregoire not only fosters strong bipartisanship
among her colleagues, she helps build common-sense solutions to
some of our nation’s toughest problems. Michelle and I, along with
the people of Washington, will miss her outstanding leadership and
thank her for her years of service.”

Jerry Cornfield at the (Everett) Herald reports U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee,
D-Bainbridge Island, sent out an invitation for a Sunday fundraiser
in Mukilteo advising:

“We know it’s early in the cycle, but the
Congressman is trying to put some funds in the bank early for his
Congressional race and also if there is an opening to run for
Governor”

Cornfield checked with the stat’s Public Disclosure Commission
to see if what the invite said was enough to require Inslee to file
as a candidate for governor. Cornfield said it was “darn close,”
but not quite enough of an official announcement.

The “opening” for Inslee would come if Gov. Chris Gregoire
decided not to run for a third term,
which most are predicting won’t happen.

We posted online on Tuesday and plan to have in print a story
updating the future of the Frances Haddon Morgan Center, a facility
for the developmentally disabled that has been open since 1972.

At issue is whether the state’s executive branch, through the
Department of Social and Health Services, is treating the center’s
closure as a done deal and whether the agency has the right to do
that.

I have a call into DSHS officials to find out what the agency’s
plans are for the center and if it is as legislators contend, what
authority they’re relying on to proceed that direction.

State Rep. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, said she
believes the agency is attempting to relocate the center’s
residents before the Legislature passes a final budget. Doing so
would take the decision about the center out of the Legislature’s
hands. The questions being discussed now are whether that is really
happening and whether that is within the executive branch’s right
to do.

Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna, in an interview on KCTS, said he
will have to decide sometime this year, and not too late, whether
he plans to run for governor in 2012.

The most often mentioned potential opponent, Bainbridge Island
Democratic Congressman Jay Inslee, will be speaking to the island
Rotary club tonight. The Kitsap Sun’s Tristan Baurick will be
there. I would not expect Inslee to make any kind of announcement
tonight. It might be too soon after the most recent election and
the current governor has not officially made her plans known
yet.

In general, we don’t make a lot of fuss over most endorsements
or advertising. On endorsements we’ll usually provide a list of
them, but we don’t write a story every time a candidate is endorsed
by Washington Ichthyologists or the ASB President at Klahowya. For
negative ads there might be a story or two, say when a candidate’s
photo is doctored to make him or her like the victim of bad plastic
surgery or it’s alleged that the candidate wants to sterilize
sections of Poulsbo.

On Thursday we received notices that cause us to make two
exceptions. Attorney General Rob McKenna has endorsed one of Jay
Inslee’s challengers. The other is a Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee ad highlighting alleged negatives of someone who has not
publicly stated an intention to run. Both developments make sense,
but it doesn’t mean there’s little surprise.

“In 2004, after I lost my first race for governor, I was sitting
around feeling sorry for myself – until I realized that this was
not a political setback, but a business opportunity! I had lots of
great ideas – and a rocking stump speech. Why not use those things
to make a tidy little profit? The “nonprofit” Forward Washington
Foundation was born. Forward Washington – which is what I called my
campaign, too – was supposed to improve the state’s business
climate. And it did! Without Forward Washington, my former
political aides might have been out of work, and I would have had
$75,000 per year less to live on! Of course, those whiny Democrats
complained that I was evading campaign-finance disclosure laws.
They were just jealous that the state’s Public Disclosure
Commission found that the foundation had raised a whopping $360,000
from unidentified donors. When I left my foundation to run for
governor again, I worried about my income loss, but it helped that
the foundation spent nearly $10,000 on copies of my book to give to
donors. Thanks, guys!”

The site doesn’t just focus on Rossi’s defeats. The committee
argues that Rossi was put into politics by shady types and
benefited from industries he supported when he was in office.

That I know of, there are no other negative ad campaigns against
any of the announced candidates. The reason is simple. Scroll down
the list of the dozen or so
candidates who have announced they’re running against Democrat
Patty Murray and see if you find someone who has better name
recognition than Rossi. See anyone who immediately is a stronger
bet against the incumbent?

McKenna’s endorsement of Republican James Watkins surprises me
only because there is another Republican in that race. Why it makes
sense is because it’s clear that McKenna is the favorite to carry
the Republican banner in the governor’s race, while Inslee has been
emerging lately as a strong possibility among the Democrats. Inslee
has been blistering McKenna lately over
the AG’s decision to challenge the constitutionality of the health
care reform legislation just passed.

Horsesass.org posted a video of Inslee calling out McKenna. The
video appears in a blog post longing for Inslee vs.
McKenna in 2012.

“We’ve shown that Congressman Inslee is vulnerable, and
Congressman Inslee has shown us that he’s not terribly interested
in being the 1st District’s representative, but is already itching
to start his 2012 campaign for governor. (See here and here)

“With the support of Attorney General McKenna and people
throughout the 1st District who want change in Washington, D.C., I
look forward to retiring Mr. Inslee this November so he can devote
himself full-time to seeking yet another political office.”

McKenna, for his part, is quoted only in endorsing Watkins.

“James has the real-world experience and solid principles to be
a great congressman working for the 1st District,” said McKenna.
“He will make a big difference in D.C. and help put our nation on a
better path.”

Still, if Inslee were to lose his congressional seat, it would
seem to hurt his chances to be the Democratic ticket bearer in
2012. If you’re one to believe there were political machinations in
McKenna’s decision to challenge health care reform, it would not be
a stretch to see it here, too.

About Watkins’ point that “We’ve shown that Congressman Inslee
is vulnerable,” you may recall we took a look at that claim
made by Watkins using a survey he commissioned.

The owner of the company that performed the survey was mentioned
on another site.

Finding out who paid for the poll also is critical, said
pollster Bob Moore of Oregon-based Moore Information. If a
candidate has paid for it, then the numbers can’t be taken at face
value, he said, and reporters should do everything they can to
speak to the pollster about the results, not someone working with
the campaign.

“The pollster may get some numbers that the campaign doesn’t
like, and won’t release,” Moore said.

I contacted both the pollster and the campaign. The pollster
told me I’d have to get the information I wanted from the campaign.
A staffer from Watkins’ campaign contacted me Thursday by e-mail,
stating in part:

“Since the poll has some information we would prefer not to have
the Inslee campaign get wind of, we’re not going to release all the
details.”

So that means either Watkins got some info the campaign is
saving to lob onto Inslee later, or the pollster got some
information the campaign didn’t like. Either way, without that
information I don’t know how we can assume the conclusion “Inslee
is vulnerable” is any more credible than an ad suggesting a
candidate for the House wants to dump Hanford nuclear waste into
the Columbia River.

Two local writers dive into the motives of state Attorney
General Rob McKenna in suing the federal government over the health
care bill just passed. I think they both do a pretty good job, with
the caveat that each is assuming there is something beyond a
legitimate belief that the health care reform just passed is
unconstitutional. If McKenna believes the reform law is
unconstitutional, you could rightly ask what choice he had but to
challenge it.

The writers, though, are probably right in making that
assumption. We can never assume that meeting constitutional muster
is the only issue at play in constitutional issues. Former U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes said:

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the
judges say it is . . . “

He was also quoted by fellow justice William O. Douglas as
saying 90 percent of the decisions made at the Supreme Court are
based on emotions, that justices find ways in the document to back
up their beliefs.

McKenna, though, seems at first blush to be the one AG in this
fight with the most to lose by sticking his neck out. He’s a
Republican who hasn’t been demonized by the left and is seen as a
legitimate contender for the governor’s office. And yet the state
is more left than right, and I think it’s not a bad bet to assume
that most Washingtonians favor health care reform generally.

Let’s do assume again, as most of us have, that McKenna wants to
be Washington’s governor. David Brewster at Crosscut.com offers this possibility:

Judging by the over-the-top reaction by local Democrats —
talking about defunding his suit, slicing away A-G authority, even
a recall — maybe McKenna was engaging in some “performance art.”
That form of political craftiness consists of doing something so
that your opponents fall right into the trap of extreme behavior,
making you look sensible.

Then Peter Callaghan at the (Tacoma) News Tribune reminds us that
to win in a November 2012 governor election, he’d first have to
make it to that election, qualifying as one of the top-two vote
getters in the primary. A move like this at least sets him apart
from other Republicans. And if he hadn’t done it:

Had McKenna not joined the litigation he would have been savaged
by Republicans and become a target of conservative talk radio. In
the short term, it doesn’t hurt him much to instead be savaged by
Democrats. They take their own risks by using budget maneuvers to
block Mc-Kenna’s participation in the suit.

And then of course, Callaghan reveals the ultimate truth in all
of this:

On Tuesday the president signed the health care reform bill,
which to some is a BFD, and I’m not talking about fire departments.
Locals were talking about it. Also on
Tuesday some state attorneys general, including ours, joined in a
lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of some of the bill’s
provisions.

In response the Legislature might write into the budget a provision
limiting the AG’s ability to offer such a lawsuit.

It all made for interesting radio on KIRO Tuesday. State
Attorney General Rob McKenna, Gov. Chris Gregoire and U.S. Rep. Jay
Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, were all on the Dave Ross show.
McKenna made a repeat appearance on the Dori Monson show.

If you’ve got a few minutes, and if you’re here you clearly do,
listen to the conversations. They’re available after the jump.

McKenna is clearly in the position that elements of the bill are
unconstitutional, and he goes to some length to argue why. Gregoire
and Inslee both say his interpretation is wrong, but spend more
time talking about what impact it would have if McKenna’s case is
ultimately upheld in the courts. If you’re a fan of the bill, that
should worry you.

The U.S. Justice Department plans to defend the bill, so it isn’t
as if no one thinks the bill passes muster. The problem comes,
though, because the attorneys general could win. McKenna argues
that they’re only going after particular elements of the bill, but
Inslee and others argue that the elements they’re going after are
pins that hold the whole thing up. Kill the mandate and you’ve
essentially killed the bill.

The next question, then, is do Republicans really want to win
this fight? If they do, will it give Democrats the opening to put
forward something closer to a single-payer system? Dave Ross argues
that if you turn this whole thing into a tax, rather than a forced
entry into the market, you probably don’t get the same
constitutional debate. At least those kind of cases have been
argued and settled in the past.

The one piece of technology that failed me this weekend was
audio from the AP Legislative Preview in Olympia last week. TVW,
however, made it easy. They’ve made the videos from the preview
embeddable. If you’ve got a few hours and an ear for wonkiness, the
videos follow the jump.Continue reading →

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire was clear she didn’t like the
budget she published last week. I’ve received probably a dozen or
more e-mails from different organizations in response to the
budget. No one of those liked it either.

In a letter to state workers the governor emphasized again she
didn’t like the budget, saying, “This document is not true to the
values I believe in and which have guided me through a 30-year
career in public service. It’s not a budget I can live with nor is
it one I believe Washingtonians can live with.”

Further in the letter (A PDF of which you can get here) her next budget
should include funding for the state’s Basic Health and Apple
Health plans; the state’s general assistance program; levy
equalization; higher ed financial aid; early childhood education;
adult medical, dental, vision and hospice programs; and
developmental disability and long-term care services.

As for increased revenues Gregoire anticipates the federal
government will ante up more for safety net programs, but will also
work with the Legislature to find “additional needed revenue.” That
first will come from exemptions and loopholes, savings and “we will
experience shared pain from this work. While it is evident we
cannot cut our way out of this budget dilemma, it is just as
certain we cannot tax our way out of it.”

A copy of the letter was given to us by Dr. Bette Hyde, director
of the Department of Early Learning, and Earl, executive director
of the State Board of Technical and Community Colleges. The two
visited with the Kitsap Sun editorial board.

A report by the state’s Caseload Forecast Council has created a
potential increase of $520 million in what the state needs to
spend, according to an e-mail sent to members of the House’s Ways
& Means Committee.

Yona Makowski, senior fiscal coordinator for the House
Democratic Caucus, wrote that the council’s revised forecast will
be shown in the governor’s 2010 supplemental budget, which had
already been expected to address a projected $1.7 billion
shortfall.

Makowski wrote that the state’s Office of Financial Management
computed the cost of the changes at $277.4 million, but other costs
not directly related to the caseloads would add another $243
million.

State Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, shared the e-mail with
us and pointed out that there is still another revenue forecast
due, which could show another negative revision to the budget.

Got a report to tell you about, but first let’s dig into some
context.

Like any educated citizen, I rely on talk radio for much of my
information.

Earlier this year one host in particular was making the case
that Washington’s deficit budget shortfall was
actually worse than California’s, because per capita it was higher,
or close to it, or something. I suspected the talker might
astonishingly be incorrect about that, but the Seattle Times backed him
up, kind of.

Turns out he was incredibly wrong.

My suspicion about it was based on the notion California had
reached its $42 million hole after years of dealing with other
holes. So, if after years of wrangling and cutting everything we
could we were still left with the same hole we had last year, then
that would be a California-sized problem. That makes the talker
wrong, but not incredibly so.

The incredible part comes in once you realize California’s
budget is done every year. Washington’s is for every two years. So
take Washington’s deficit and divide by two. Uh oh.

It still might be bad, but it’s not California bad.

So now the Pew Center on the States, a think tank that studies
state issues, listed 10 states that are “in fiscal peril.” Guess
what! Washington isn’t on the list!

If you look at the study itself this is not to suggest
Washington is in good shape, it’s just not among the worst 10. It
is tied with three states for 14th. From the press release for the
study:

California’s financial problems are in a league of their own.
But the same pressures that drove the Golden State toward fiscal
disaster are wreaking havoc in a number of states, with potentially
damaging consequences for the entire country.

This examination by the Pew Center on the States looks closely
at nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly
affected by the recession. All of California’s neighbors–Arizona,
Nevada and Oregon–and fellow Sun Belt state Florida were severely
hit by the bursting housing bubble, landing them on Pew’s list of
states facing fiscal difficulties similar to California’s. A
Midwestern cluster of states comprising Illinois, Michigan and
Wisconsin emerged, too, as did the Northeastern states of New
Jersey and Rhode Island.

From the press release you can download the study if you
like.

Pew compiled its list based on high foreclosure rates,
increasing joblessness, loss of state revenues, the
relative size of budget gaps, legal obstacles to balanced
budgets—specifically, a supermajority requirement for some or all
tax increases or budget bills, and poor money-management
practices.

Where Washington appeared to fare badly was in the size of the
budget deficit and the fact that Washington is one of 17 states to
require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Brad Shannon at the Olympian writes about Gov. Chris Gregoire’s apparent
frustration with legislators saying “Don’t cut this.”
There’s a projected need to cut between $1.2 billion and $1.7 from
the current budget, starting in January. A report that made
specific recommendations has drawn some defensiveness from some
legislators. From the story:

“The message to us to not cut anything really is not helpful. We
need to be working together and figuring out how to get from where
we are to the end,” Gregoire said.

Yet “don’t cut” is mostly the message she’s gotten after a
consultant’s report last week recommended closures of some adult
prison, juvenile prison and developmentally-disabled care
facilities. And some lawmakers are faulting the study.

By the way, governor, don’t cut that new midday ferry run in
Bremerton.

Just in case you don’t regularly check in with Chris Dunagan’s
Watching Our Water Ways blog, allow me to refer you to his entry on the newly
appointed chief of staff for Gov. Chris Gregoire. He’s Jay Manning,
and he grew up here.

The Seattle Times’ Andrew Garber reports that Gov. Chris
Gregoire told reporters that she made the case to President Obama
that states are going to need help
again in 2011, particularly with Medicare.

Almost everyone (And I only include “almost” because I’m
allowing that there may be a contrarian out there somewhere.)
agrees that the economic recovery, which may have already begun,
will be slow. Gregoire is among them.

That we may already be in recovery, slow as it is, may mean the
Legislature won’t have to hold a special session in October.
Legislators have said economic projections might make it necessary
to readjust the budget, but the last forecast was positive in that
it wasn’t worse than expected.

State Rep. Fred Finn, D-Olympia, said Wednesday he ranks the
odds as 60-40 against a special session. Part of that is because of
the recovery we are rumored to be in. The other part is the
logistical nightmare of opening up that conversation again. The
session could address anything. “Once you call the Legislature
back, it’s kind of hard to control where it goes,” Finn said.